Doctrines and Principles in Remedial Law

Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each others orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. hen the law provides

for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the !C or C", it means that such body is coequal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the e#ercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special $nowledge, e#perience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from e#ercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Omictin vs. CA, GR 148004, January 22, 2007). Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuity of jurisdiction %n view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the e#ercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented

jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. &ven the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. hat the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. &ven after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and e#ecute it (Eche aray vs. !ecretary "# Justice, $01 !CRA %&). Neypes doctrine %f the motion is denied, the movants has a fresh period of '( days from receipt or notice of the order denying or dismissing the motion for reconsideration within which to file a notice to appeal. This new period becomes significant if either a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial has been filed but was denied or dismissed. This fresh period rule applies only to Rule )'governing appeals from the RTC but also to Rule )* governing appeals from +TC to RTC, Rule ), on petitions for review from the RTC to the C", Rule )- on appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to the C", and Rule )( governing appeals by certiorari to the !C. "ccordingly, this rule was adopted to standardi.e the appeal periods provided in the Rules to afford fair opportunity to review the case and, in the process, minimi.e errors of judgment. /bviously, the new '( day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed0 otherwise, the decision becomes final and e#ecutory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule )' 12eypes vs. C", 3R ')'(,), !ept. '), ,**(4. The 2eypes ruling shall not be applied where no motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration has been filed in which case the '(-day period shall run from notice of the judgment. The fresh period rule does not refer to the period within which to appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial because the order is not appealable under !ec. 5, Rule -6. The nonappealability of the order of denial is also confirmed by !ec. '1a4, Rule )', which provides that no appeal may be ta$en from an order denying a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the ne#t highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is li$ewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for e#traordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its e#clusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Courts doc$et (!ec. %'1(, )* 12%+ !ec. ,'1(, Art. -..., C"nstituti"n "# the *hi/i00ines). " higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The !C is a court of last resort. %t cannot and should not be burdened with the tas$ of deciding cases in the first instances. %ts jurisdiction to issue e#traordinary writs should be e#ercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons e#ist. 7etitions for the issuance of e#traordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the C". a direct invocation of the !Cs original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. 8nder the principle of liberal interpretations, for e#ample, it may ta$e cogni.ance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it. Precautionary Principle 9efinition. 7recautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be ta$en to avoid or diminish that threat 1 !ec. 4'#(, Ru/e 1, *art 1).

The adoption of the precautionary principle as part of these Rules, specifically relating to evidence, recogni.es that e#ceptional cases may require its application. the inclusion of a definition of this principle is an integral part of 7art :, Rule on &vidence in environmental cases in order to ease the burden of the part of ordinary plaintiffs to prove their cause of action. %n its essence, precautionary principle calls for the e#ercise of caution in the face of ris$ and uncertainty. hile the principle can be applied in any setting in which ris$ and uncertainty are found, it has evolved predominantly in and today remains most closely associated with the environmental arena. "pplicability. hen there is a lac$ of full scientific certainty in establishing a casual lin$

between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt (!ec. 1, Ru/e 20, *art -). The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved. ;y applying this principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This may be further evinced from the second paragraph of !ec. ', Rule ,*, where bias is created in favor of constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. %n effect, this principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those li$ely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. This principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of &vidence would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff< a. !ettings in which the ris$s of harm are uncertain0 b. !ettings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable0 and c. !ettings in which the harm that might result would be serious. hen these features=uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm=coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. hen in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a

balanced and healthful ecology. 7arenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest for a in which the precautionary principle may find applicability. !tandards for application. %n applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among others, may be considered< a. threats to human life or health0 b. inequity to present or future generations0 or c. prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected (!ec. 2, Ru/e 20). Doctrine of exhaustion of administrati e remedies The doctrine of e#haustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is available within the &#ecutive 9epartment, a litigant must first e#haust this remedy before he can resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error. (R"sa/es v. C"urt "# A00ea/s, 1&, !CRA $44 '1%881) The following are the e#ceptions to the application of the doctrine of e#haustion of administrative remedies< '. The question involved is purely legal0 ,. The administrative body is in estoppel0 -. The act complained of is patently illegal0 ). There is an urgent need for >udicial intervention0 (. The claim involved is small0 ?. 3rave and irreparable injury will be suffered0 6. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy0 @. !trong public interest is involved0 5. The subject of the controversy is private law0 '*. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (!unvi//e 1im2er *r"3ucts, .nc. v. A2a3. 20& !CRA 482 41%%2)+ ''. The party was denied due process 1 !amahan 5a 2u2u6i3 n 7a03u/a, .nc. v. C"urt "# A00ea/s, $0, !CRA 147 '1%%%()+

',. The decision is that of a 9epartment !ecretary. (8a9aren" v. C"urt "# A00ea/s, G.R. 8". 1$1&41, :e2ruary 2$. 2000)+ '-. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (;niversity "# the *hi/i00ines )"ar3 "# Re ents v. Rasu/ 200 !CRA &8, '1%%1()+ '). There is unreasonable '1%%%()+ '(. AThe action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Ga2rit" u. C"urt "# A00ea/s, 1&7 !CRA 771 '1%88()+ '?. The party is poor (!a2e//" v. <e0artment "# E3ucati"n, Cu/ture an3 !0"rts, 180 !CRA &2$ '1%8%()0 and '6. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Ru/ian v -a/3e9, 12 !CRA ,01 '1%&4(). Doctrine of estoppel by laches The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that courts jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the courts jurisdiction. >urisprudence however, did not intend this statement to lay down the general rule. (=a0an3ay A ricu/tura/ > <eve/"0ment C"r0. v. Estita, 44% !CRA 240+ 5an aia v. Catu2i ? *ast"ra/, 474 !CRA 1,$). The !ibonghanoy applies only to e#ceptional circumstances. The general rule remains< a courts lac$ of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal (:rance/ Rea/ty C"r0. v. !yci0, 4&% !CRA 424+ C"nce0ci"n v. Re a/a3", GR 1&7%88, :e2. &, 2007). The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to jurisdiction first appeared in the landmar$ case of Tijam vs. !ibonghanoy, ,- !CR" ,5, where the !C barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after see$ing affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. delay (Re0u2/ic v, !an3i an2ayan, $01 !CRA 2$7

The !C frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting ones case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attac$ing it for lac$ of jurisdiction if it is not ()*. v. A=! 5 t. > <evt. C"r0., 427 !CRA ,&4) !uper enin" fact doctrine %f, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the defendant may be held liable, altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. Plain iew doctrine The plain view doctrine recogni.es that objects inadvertently falling in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to sei.ure without warrant (@arris vs. ;!, $%0 ;! $24). %t may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate sei.ures, nor to e#tend a general e#ploratory search made solely to find evidence of a defendants guilt. %t is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object (C""/i3 e vs. 8eA @am0shire, 40$ ;! 44$). %t is also been suggested that even if an object is observed in plain view, the sei.ure of the subject will not be justified where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent. !tated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to sei.ure (*e"0/e vs. 5usa, 217 !CRA ,%7) The elements of Bplain view sei.ure are< a. prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties0 b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are0 c. the evidence must be immediately apparent0 and d. Bplain view justified mere sei.ure of evidence without further search (*e"0/e vs. Aruta, 288 !CRA &2&). Doctrine of Processual Presumption

%t is that doctrine which lays down the presumption that the foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. %t arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable, is either not alleged, or if alleged, is not duly proved before a competent court. Principle of Liberal #nterpretations The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities of procedural imperfections. %n that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to e#pedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. " strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. %n fact, section ? of Rule ' states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and ine#pensive disposition of every action and proceeding. $mnibus %otion Rule The rule is a procedural principle which requires that every motion that attac$s a pleading, judgment, order or proceeding shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (!ec. 8). !ince the rule is subject to the provisions of !ec. ', Rule 5, the objections mentioned therein are not deemed waived even if not included in the motion. These objections are< a. that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, b. that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause 1litis pendencia4, c. that the action is barred by a prior judgment 1res judicata4, and d. that the action is barred by the statute of limitations 1prescription4 (!ec. 1, 0ar. 2, Ru/e %). " motion to dismiss is a typical e#ample of a motion subject to omnibus motion rule, since a motion to dismiss attac$s a complaint which is a pleading. Collowing the omnibus motion rule, if a motion to dismiss is filed, then the motion must invo$e all objections which are available at the time of the filing of said motion. %f the objection which is available at the time is not included in the motion, that ground is deemed

waived. %t can no longer be invo$ed as affirmative defense in the answer which the movant may file following the denial of his motion to dismiss. Hearsay Rule The basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. ;ecause the person who supposedly $new the facts is not in court to state hisDher e#act words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other partyEs lawyer cannot cross-e#amine 1as$ questions of4 him or her. Fowever, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the e#ceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as< a. a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what heDshe has said in court 1called an Gadmission against interestG40 b. business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were $ept0 c. official government records which can be shown to be properly $ept0 d. a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witnessEs memory about the event0 e. a Glearned treatiseG which means historical wor$s, scientific boo$s, published art wor$s, maps and charts0 f. judgments in other cases0 g. a spontaneous e#cited or startled utterance 1Goh, 3od, the bus hit the little girlG40 h. contemporaneous statement which e#plains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous0 i. a statement which e#plains a personEs state of mind at the time of an event0 j. a statement which e#plains a personEs future intentions 1G% plan toH.G4 if that personEs state of mind is in question0 $. prior testimony, such as in deposition 1ta$en under oath outside of court4, or at a hearing, if the witness is not available 1including being dead40

l. a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to hisDher best interest if the party is not available at trial 1this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial40 m. a dying declaration by a person believing heDshe is dying0 n. a statement made about oneEs mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the declarant is dead 1Gmy bac$ hurts horribly,G and then dies40 o. a statement about oneEs own will when the person is not available0 p. other e#ceptions based on a judgeEs discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable. Principle of Prior or &ontemporary Jurisdiction &nforcement of writ of preliminary attachment must be preceded by or simultaneously accompanied by service of summons, copy of complaint, application and affidavits for the attachment and the bond upon the adverse party0 ;8T the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the summons could not be served despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the 7hils temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of the 7hils or the action is in rem or quasi in rem. Doctrine of Res Judicata " specific doctrine that precludes relitigation of claims and issues arising from the same cause of action between the same parties and their privies after a final judgment on the merits by a competent tribunal or after some other final determination having the same effect Ires judicata precludes only subsequent suits on the same cause of action0 collateral estoppel may preclude relitigation of issues in later suits on any cause of action Doctrine of 'ualified Political ("ency The e#ecutive power is vested in the Chief &#ecutive. Fowever, he also acts through his Cabinet !ecretaries.

Doctrine of )inality of Jud"ment/ #mmutability of Jud"ment/ &onclusi eness of Jud"ment Cundamental is the rule that where the judgment of a higher court has become final and e#ecutory and has been returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of e#ecution. %n addition, a final and e#ecutory judgment can no longer be amended by adding thereto a relief not originally included. %n short, once a judgment becomes final, the winning party is entitled to a writ of e#ecution and the issuance thereof becomes a courtJs ministerial duty. The lower court cannot vary the mandate of the superior court or ree#amine it for any other purpose other than e#ecution0 much less may it review the same upon any matter decided on appeal or error apparent0 nor intermeddle with it further than to settle so much as has been demanded. 8nder the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Fighest Court of the land. "ny act which violates this principle must immediately be struc$ down. ;ut li$e any other rule, it has e#ceptions, namely< '. the correction of clerical errors0 ,. the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party0 -. void judgments0 and ). whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its e#ecution unjust and inequitable. The e#ception to the doctrine of immutability of judgment has been applied in several cases in order to serve substantial justice. *otality Rule 8nder this rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be

the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. *wo-Dismissal Rule The two-dismissal rule applies when the plaintiff has a. twice dismissed actions, b. based on or including the same claim, c. in a court of competent jurisdiction. The second notice of dismissal will bar the refilling of the action because it will operate as an adjudication of the claim upon the merits. %n other words, the claim may only be filed twice, the first being the claim embodied in the original complaint. !ince as a rule, the dismissal is without prejudice, the same claim may be refiled. %f the refiled claim or complaint is dismissed again through a second notice of dismissal, that second notice triggers the application of the two-dismissal rule and the dismissal is to be deemed one with prejudice because it is considered as an adjudication upon the merits. !tare Decisis This principle enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts to follow the rule established in a decision of the !upreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. %t is based on the principle that once a question of law has been e#amined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Doctrine of Law of the &ase "ccording to this principle, whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. This principle generally finds application in cases where an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. Consequently, the court reviewing the succeeding appeal will not re-litigate the case but instead apply the ruling in the

previous appeal. This enables the appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently which would be impossible if a question, one considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case and upon any and subsequent appeal.

!in"le %otion Rule " party shall not be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or a final order. The rule states< A2o party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final orderK. ;e reminded that the prohibition on a second motion applies only when the motion is directed against a judgment or a final order. The rule does not apply to a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. Doctrine of Residual Jurisdiction The RTC loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the e#piration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Fowever, the TRC despite the perfection of the appeals may still issue orders of the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order e#ecution pending appeal in accordance with !ec., of Rule -5, and allow withdrawal of the appeal provided these are done before the Court of "ppeals gives due course to the petition. Recall that in an ordinary appeal the residual jurisdiction of the RTC may be e#ercised prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record of appeal. This doctrine also applies to Rule ),. %aterial Data +date, Rule !ection - of Rule )? of the Rules of Court provides that there are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule ?(< a. the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received0 b. the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration when one such was filed0 and c. the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. This requirement is for the purpose of determining the timeliness of the petition.

Doctrine of (nticipatory -reach &ven if the contract is divisible in its performance and the future periodic deliveries are not yet due, if the obligor has already manifested his refusal to comply with his future periodic obligations, Athe contract is entire and the breach total,K hence there can only be one action for damages ()/"ss"m > C". vs. 5ani/a Gas C"r0., ,, *hi/. 22&) Doctrine of (dherence to Jurisdiction >urisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. Doctrine of (ncillary Jurisdiction %n an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (!ec. 7, Ru/e &). Principle of .xclusionary Rule The court first ta$ing cogni.ance of the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall e#ercise jurisdiction to the e#clusion of all other courts. ./&.P*#$N!0 &stoppel by L"CF&! - N$*.< >urisdiction under Rule 6- !ec. ' does 2/T relate to jurisdiction per se but to venue. %t is 2/T an element of jurisdiction but of procedure, hence institution in the court where the decedent is neither an inhabitant or have his estate may be waived. (;riarte vs. C:.)

*he Doctrine of Non-interference in (ssociations Rule< The Courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unincorporated association so as to settle disputes between the members on question of policy, discipline, or internal government, so long as the government of the society is fairly and

honestly administered in conformity with laws and the law of the land no property or civil rights are invaded. .xceptions0 '. here law and justice so require, and the proceeding of the association are subject to judicial review, where there is fraud, oppression, or bad faith, or where the action complained of is capricious, arbitrary or unjustly discriminating. (:"rtunat" vs. *a/ma, GR8 7020$, <ec. 18, 1%87, 1,& !CRA &%1) ,. %f it is shown that the Church authorities have acted outside the scope of their authorities or in a manner contrary to their organic law and rules and the CourtJs interference is necessary for the protection of Civil and 7roperty rights. (8e r"s <istrict C"n#erence, .nc. vs. CA, 108 !cra 4,8, 1%81) -. here the proceedings in question are violative of the laws of society, or the law of the land, as by depriving a person of due process of law. ). here there is lac$ of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal conducting the proceedings, where the organi.ation e#ceeds its powers, or where the proceedings are otherwise illegal. (=i"ns C/u2 .nternati"na/ vs. Am"res, 121 !CRA &21, 1%8$) *he La Na al Doctrines on Jurisdiction '. >urisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, that is, pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer. :oluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be construed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense. ,. here the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. %t is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to

confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. (=a 8ava/ vs. CA, 2$& !CRA 78) Doctrine of #mmutability of Jud"ment The jurisdiction of the court to amend, modify or alter its judgment terminates when the judgment becomes final. Doctrine of Hot Pursuit hen an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on 7&R!/2"L M2/ L&93& of fact and circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed it. Hornboo1 Doctrine "n accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Doctrine of (dopti e (dmission "n adoptive admission is a partyJs reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partyJs reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person (E!1RA<A vs. <E!.ER1O $,& !CRA 108). Principle of 2)alsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat3 Calse description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person intended has once been sufficiently described. Doctrine of #ncomplete *estimony hen cross-e#amination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stric$en from the record. Principle of Res #nter (lios (cta '!T 7"RT< The rights of a party C"22/T be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, e#cept as hereinafter provided (!ec. 2840

,nd 7"RT< !imilar acts as evidence (!ec. $4). Principle of Ne"ati in" ( erments %s a party required to prove negative allegationsN 4.N.R(L R5L.< 2/. They need not be proved, whether in a civil or criminal action. ./&.P*#$N< here such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause

of action or defense in a civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses thereto. F/ &:&R, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, such negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the e#istence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party. *he )ruit of the Poisonous *ree / -ut )or/ *aint Doctrine posits that all evidence 1the fruit4 derived from an illegal search 1the poisonous tree4 must be suppressed, whether it was obtained directly through the illegal search itself or indirectly using information obtained din the illegal search. Doctrine of #nterloc1in" &onfessions %t states that e#trajudicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and corroborated by other evidence against the persons implicated, are admissible to show the probability of the latterJs actual participation in the commission of the crime. Doctrine of !uper enin" (ct

%f, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which the defendant may be held liable, altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. Doctrine of &ompleteness The statement as offered must not be merely part of the whole as it was e#pressed by the declarant0 it must be complete as far as it goes. To be complete does not mean that it should contain everything that constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but it should e#press in full all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. 4.N.R(L R5L.0 hen cross-e#amination cannot be done or completed due

to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent should be stric$en out of the record. ./&.P*#$N0 here prosecution witness was e#tensively cross- e#amined on

the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest. O " party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the testimony of said witness, &PC&7T< 1'4 adverse party0 1,4 hostile witness0 1-4 unwilling witness0 1)4 witness required by law to be presented. Law of the &ase Doctrine %t means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. "s a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that

question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to see$ a rehearing. Liberal &onstruction Principle The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. %n that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to e#pedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. " strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. %n fact, !ection ? of Rule ' states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and ine#pensive disposition of every action and proceeding (<E-E=O*5E81 )A87 O: 1@E *@.=.**.8E! vs. :A5.=B :OO<! 5A8;:AC1;R.8G CO. =1<. G.R. 8". 1804,8, Ju/y $0, 200%, 1hir3 <ivisi"n, 8achura, J.). Res 4estae Refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the e#citement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. Res #psa Lo6uitor %t literally means the thing spea$s for itself. This doctrine provides that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, ta$en with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or ma$e out a plaintiffEs 0rima #acie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an e#planation. here the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of e#planation by the defendant, that the accident

arose from or was caused by the defendantEs want of care (Ram"s v. CA, G.R. 8". 124$,4, <ec. 2%, 1%%%). R.'5#!#*.!0 '. The occurrence of an injury0 ,. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant0 -. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care0 and ). The absence of e#planation by the defendant (*r"#essi"na/ !ervices, .nc. v. A ana, G.R. 8". 12&2%7, Jan. $1, 2007). Lis Pendens/Litis Pendencia This may refer to any pending lawsuit or to a specific situation with a public notice of litigation that has been recorded in the same location where the title of real property has been recorded. This notice secures a plaintiffEs claim on the property so that the sale, mortgage, or encumbrance of the property will not diminish plaintiffEs rights to the property, should the plaintiff prevail in its case. %n some jurisdictions, when the notice is properly recorded, lis pendens is considered constructive notice to the other litigants or other unrecorded or subordinate lienholders.